Regulating said tools so that less safer tools are not in the hands of the general public is a bad idea how?

Click to expand...

Some users are morons and when they can't read the simple directions, they get hurt.

I worked for a professional photographer for many years and we saw what happens when idiots misuse tools. They get hurt and they sue. The costs increase and laws are passed that do not need to be passed.

Some say getting hurt is a tragedy; I say it is a much needed thinning of the herd.

On the lid of my washer is a warning that basically says, if the garmet has ever been stained with oil, including vegetable oil, here is how to treat the stain, but DO NOT Dry in in the Kenmore Dryer because of the risk of fire. Some idiot likely tried drying something saturated with oil and got hurt so we all pay the price.

Thank goodness my right to keep and bear a powder cartridge nail gun is still intact. I am thinking I'll get a contractor's license and then a nice new NG to greet the occasional burglar.

Interesting. I've been given two of the 3 D-cell Maglites as gifts, and wondered who came up with that idea, considering that D-cells are sold in packs of 4, not 3. Then I realized that the battery makers profited from such waste. To think that otherwise innocent people are being punished with criminal penalties, and having their lives ruined for something as crass as to increase corporate profits! That's really twisted.

Click to expand...

Same reason hot dogs are sold in packs of 8 and hot dog buns are sold in packs of 12. Damn corporations exploiting people!!!

Same reason hot dogs are sold in packs of 8 and hot dog buns are sold in packs of 12. Damn corporations exploiting people!!!

Click to expand...

Yes, good point. Of course nobody has been arrested for possession of buns without hot dogs to fill them. And IMO nobody should. Likewise for flashlights and batteries, or pistols that were designed to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Although law enforcement professionals and soldiers may carry extra ammunition magazines, and have supply lines to get them even more ammo as needed, the average pistol-for-home-security owner isn't likely to go downstairs to investigate a suspicious noise wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying extra magazines.

So if this person gets ambushed at the bottom of the stairs by multiple gunmen, those extra rounds can make the difference between life and death for the gun owner protecting his or her home. Therefore the claim that "nobody needs more than x bullets" is fallacious for one of the rights that the anti-gun lobby claims that they're not affecting. The problem is that they are affecting honest citizens, and for the worse.

I'm not a hunter, but my understanding is that hunting laws that have existed for a very long time restricts the number of rounds in a hunters rifle for the express purpose of keeping it "sporting". Given that, why do we need another set of pointlessly redundant laws that do the same thing.

I'm as much for reducing the murder rate as anyone, even to the point that I no longer own any personal firearms. But the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. The current crop of new gun restrictions have been tried before, and they failed. Repeating the same fear and ignorance-based laws aren't a bona fide solution.

Guns aren't the issue. People are. If parents teach their kids how to be kind to others, we wouldn't have mass murderers in our nation. I still believe all this gun regulation is just the governments way to make sure they're not used against them.

Guns aren't the issue. People are. If parents teach their kids how to be kind to others, we wouldn't have mass murderers in our nation. I still believe all this gun regulation is just the governments way to make sure they're not used against them.

Click to expand...

But guns arethe issue; that's the single biggest stumbling block to making any kind of progress!

I don't know if parents teaching their children good values will completely eliminate all of the problem people. I think it's a far more complex matter. But it's a good place to start. The societal norms that say it's OK for parents to indulge their own selfish interests, time that's not being spent teaching their kids good values, isn't doing the kids any favors.

We've done every one of the proposed gun restrictions before (and we're still doing some right now), and they didn't help. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.

Auto-Ordnance sells new Thomspons...I'm still waiting for someone to make an out of-the-box high capacity .45 for the AR platform.

The silly thing is...shotguns are more effective weapons at close range than so-called assault rifles. Most of these shootings seem to happen inside buildings, at point blank, ideal range. Why make a hole the size of your little finger when you can do the size of a lemon with buckshot? The 7 round capacity isn't a problem if you practice to reload it properly. But no one is talking about banning shotguns because AR-15s look evil. I'm not complaining... I'm just constantly in-awe of the number of ignorant people.

Auto-Ordnance sells new Thomspons...I'm still waiting for someone to make an out of-the-box high capacity .45 for the AR platform.

The silly thing is...shotguns are more effective weapons at close range than so-called assault rifles. Most of these shootings seem to happen inside buildings, at point blank, ideal range. Why make a hole the size of your little finger when you can do the size of a lemon with buckshot? The 7 round capacity isn't a problem if you practice to reload it properly. But no one is talking about banning shotguns because AR-15s look evil. I'm not complaining... I'm just constantly in-awe of the number of ignorant people.

Click to expand...

Banning shotguns is on the future agenda, I'm sure, as are all firearms. The installation and advancement of socialism (called liberalism in this country) is done in a step by step process so as to make each baby step seem less threatening. Kind of like increasing taxes... a few cents here, a few cents there... it all adds up.

The silly thing is...shotguns are more effective weapons at close range than so-called assault rifles.

Click to expand...

Excellent point. That further highlights the recklessness of the people who are yelling and screaming, but don't know even the basics about the topic.

In a democracy, the will of the majority should rule. I don't believe that the people who are blindly demanding a repeat of failed prohibitions past or the NRA represent anything close to a majority. Maybe we need a mainstream organization to represent the people who know enough to make informed decisions to raise its voice and bring some sanity to the national discussion.

If you are willing to pay the fees and you can pass a check, you can own a Thompson Machine gun. You can also own silencers and supressors.

Not sure where you get your info, but you are absolutely wrong.

Click to expand...

Yes class III is available. But this is for dealers, collectors etc. MOST people won't pass the check for class III, even if they can pass for purchase of an AR 15 semi. There is then the tax stamp issue, added cost and wait period for any purchase like this.

But I'm not absolutely wrong. Thompson sub machine guns have been illegal since 1931. Are there exceptions? Of course, as in anything.

Yes class III is available. But this is for dealers, collectors etc. MOST people won't pass the check for class III, even if they can pass for purchase of an AR 15 semi. There is then the tax stamp issue, added cost and wait period for any purchase like this.

But I'm not absolutely wrong. Thompson sub machine guns have been illegal since 1931. Are there exceptions? Of course, as in anything.

Don't get your panties in a wad.

Click to expand...

No undergarmets of mine are in wad form. I simply responded to the mis-information you posted. They are simply not illegal. You said so yourself.

Perhaps I am missing whatever point you are trying to make?

My guess is most people will pass but will never try due to the costs involved.

It looks like the discussion has degraded into one of "how much can I get away with?" I think that's a sad, but telling example of how too few Americans are making grown-up decisions, and how too many are thinking at a less than grown-up level.

No matter what the intended use, loaded firearms are extremely hazardous devices. As such, they're not suitable as toys, or to be taken lightly. We still have a very big problem with adults acting like children, using firearms in ways that IMO should not be tolerated under any circumstance. And it looks like most of us couldn't care less!

I think it's a national disgrace when the first news of a black child being murdered in Chicago becomes national news only because that black girl happened to be in the Presidential Inaugural parade only days before. I think it's a disgrace when pundits exploit the tragedy at Newtown to demand "more of the same" failed gun control laws whilst falling over as they pat themselves on the back. If it was that important to them, why are their "solutions" so half-baked?

I'm glad to see that there are at least a couple of voices of reason here. I'm also sorely disappointed to read some truly despicable, hate-filled rhetoric from people who should know better. Is this truly the best that we can do?

It looks like the discussion has degraded into one of "how much can I get away with?" I think that's a sad, but telling example of how too few Americans are making grown-up decisions, and how too many are thinking at a less than grown-up level.

No matter what the intended use, loaded firearms are extremely hazardous devices. As such, they're not suitable as toys, or to be taken lightly. We still have a very big problem with adults acting like children, using firearms in ways that IMO should not be tolerated under any circumstance. And it looks like most of us couldn't care less!

I think it's a national disgrace when the first news of a black child being murdered in Chicago becomes national news only because that black girl happened to be in the Presidential Inaugural parade only days before. I think it's a disgrace when pundits exploit the tragedy at Newtown to demand "more of the same" failed gun control laws whilst falling over as they pat themselves on the back. If it was that important to them, why are their "solutions" so half-baked?

I'm glad to see that there are at least a couple of voices of reason here. I'm also sorely disappointed to read some truly despicable, hate-filled rhetoric from people who should know better. Is this truly the best that we can do?

Click to expand...

The "how much can I get away with" reminded me of a video I saw somewhere (i forgot, maybe YouTube?) Of some guys walking around with their big ass gun. A cop comes up and questions them and they go on about their gun rights, they refuse to id themselves and go on about those rights..... You could tell they were just trying to prove a point. I'm all for rights but that was a pretty stupid move.

The "how much can I get away with" reminded me of a video I saw somewhere (i forgot, maybe YouTube?) Of some guys walking around with their big ass gun. A cop comes up and questions them and they go on about their gun rights, they refuse to id themselves and go on about those rights..... You could tell they were just trying to prove a point. I'm all for rights but that was a pretty stupid move.

Click to expand...

Especially since under the "Patriot" law they could have been thrown in jail for refusing to show ID!

This is a very touchy subject for all parties. But now is a time for more rational thought and less over-the-top hyperbole. There's room for a middle ground here, but we must remember that it's a Constitutional issue. If the overwhelming majority of Americans don't want to change the Constitution, then we must accept the connotations of it as it is. If there are enough Americans willing to change the Constitution, I hope that it can be done without rushing to what might be a big mistake.

My own personal take on the matter is that if enough minds can be changed for a Constitutional amendment, then enough minds can be changed so that there's no need for a Constitutional amendment. In the end it's still about what's in our hearts and minds, not about contraband.

and you can have a constitutional change that says all guns are banned and must be destroyed......... every last one of them........ and if by some magic every last one was actually found and destroyed....... there would still be guns on the streets

and if by some magic there were no more guns in America...... not a single one........ there would still be mass murders...... as there was for millenia before the invention of the gun....... and as there will be until humans no longer exist

my favorite bares repeating: if banning guns will get them off the streets.... we should try banning heroine and meth

No undergarmets of mine are in wad form. I simply responded to the mis-information you posted. They are simply not illegal. You said so yourself.

Perhaps I am missing whatever point you are trying to make?

My guess is most people will pass but will never try due to the costs involved.

Click to expand...

I did not say they were not illegal. Read again, I said Thompson sub-machine guns (aka Tommy guns, and others) have been illegal since 1931. I WAS wrong about the year, it was 1934. Because there are exceptions to that law, does not mean it is not the law.